Message: 8

dante wrote in part:

"...Message: 8
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:58:59 -0500
From: "Rosati" <dante@pop.interport.net>
Subject: Re: Re: perfect pitch

[...] All the claims of the superiority of relative over perfect pitch have
always
sounded like sour grapes to me. Its like being able to see only in black and
white, and claiming that its better than seeing colors 'cause colors only
distract you from appreciating the linear composition of your visual field.
(Come to think of it, that >is< why black and white photography is so cool.
hmmm.) All in all, if I could I think I would have perfect pitch, not so
when the radiator hisses I can say "C#", but because of the increased
sensitivity to musical meaning that seems to accompany the ability. [....]

I think that both perfect and relative pitch can be useful in specific
situations, the first where exact identification of a number of Hz is
required, and the second where identification of the effect is appropriate.

Not having perfect pitch, I can imagine that it would be nice to have it.
But since I play on instruments varying between A=392Hz and A=464Hz, I would
have to learn to turn it off.

A good sense of relative pitch seems to me especially useful in experiencing
the effects of harmonic changes, such as a Schubert modulation from tonic to
the lowered submediant. The effect of such a modulation is not dependent on
the pitch at which the passage is played.

Analogies [?]: sometimes it's important to hear that the strings are
alternating w/ the reeds, sometimes it's important to know that the
particular reed you're hearing is a clarinet and not an oboe, and sometimes
you need to know whether it's the 1st or the 2nd clarinet you're hearing.

Best wishes,
Dale C. Carr